Queens

Published on: May 7, 2012

Defendant Contends 14th Amendment Rights were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

A trained undercover state police officer has purchased heroin from a seller (herein respondent) through the open doorway of an apartment. Subsequently, the police undercover described the seller to another police officer as being a colored man, approximately five feet eleven inches tall, dark complexion, black hair, short Afro style, and having high cheekbones, and of heavy build. A New York Family Lawyer said such other police officer, suspecting from the description that respondent might be the seller, then left a police photograph of respondent at the office of the police undercover, who viewed it two days later and identified it as the picture of the seller.

Consequently, respondent was charged with possession and sale of heroin, a drug crime in violation of the criminal law.

At trial, the aforesaid photograph was received in evidence without objection and the police undercover testified that there was no doubt that the person shown in the photograph was respondent and also made a positive in-court identification without objection.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Court Rules of Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and his wife were residents of California and were married in California in October 1975. Their daughter was born also in California on January 29, 1977. Two years after their marriage and not soon after their daughter was born, their marital problems drove them to a trial separation.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother and the daughter came to New York. The father joined them in New York and stayed with them for six weeks but he returned to California. A year after that, in 1978, the mother and her daughter returned to California. They stayed there until 1979. After this, the mother and her daughter returned to New York and continued to live there.

The husband who stayed in California filed a divorce proceeding in the Superior Court of California. A New York Custody Lawyer said the judge there ordered their divorce and awarded sole child custody of their daughter to the mother and gave the father reasonable visitation rights.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defendant Contends Due Process Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

Police undercover operations involving drugs and drug sales are strictly monitored. It is important that the rules are followed so that everyone’s rights are preserved. A New York Family Lawyer said that means that if the police officers do not follow the guidelines that are established in the law, the entire case can be overthrown in court. There may even be grounds for a civil lawsuit if the police violate a person’s rights. In order to be assigned an undercover task, a police officer is required to attend a specialized school that teaches them what they need to know about the laws particular to undercover stings.

In 1970, many of the undercover laws that are used to protect people today did not exist. Much of the case law from that period was used to create the laws that are in use today. On May 5, 1970, at 7:45 in the evening, a trained undercover officer and his informant arranged to go to 201 Westland, in Hartford. The person who lived at that address was a known drug dealer who called himself, “Dickie Boy.” The pair went to the apartment with two support officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the support officers watched from outside the building as the two went inside. When they got to the apartment in question, they knocked on the door. A black man who was about five foot eleven inches tall answered the door. He had a dark complexion with jet-black hair cut into a short natural afro. He had high cheekbones and a heavy built frame. The undercover team purchased heroin from the dealer and left. When the officer and informant returned to the backup officers, the officer described the drug dealer; one of the backup officers thought that he knew who the dealer was.

When they returned to the police station, the backup officer pulled a photograph of the dealer that he thought matched the description of the man who had sold the undercover team the heroin that evening. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that two days later, when the other officer came in to the office, he saw the picture of the dealer that the backup officer had left for him.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Rules on “Horiffic” Domestic Violence Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused and his victim had an “on and off” intimate relationship from January 1996 to June 199. In early June of 1997, they had an argument in which he accused her of having an affair with another man. After this argument, the victim broke off contact with him and moved out of his apartment. A New York Family Lawyer said that for over a month, he attempted repeatedly to reconcile with her. Desperate to contact her, the accused left an urgent message with the victim’s family friend stating that he was going to be hospitalized. In response, she called him that evening. During the conversation, the accused lied to the victim and told her that he had cancer. The victim then promised to visit him on 11 July 1997, between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.

On 11 July 1997, the victim arrived at the home of the accused at around 1:00 p.m. The accused was agitated because the victim was late. They first discussed his medical situation. The accused then shifted the focus of their conversation to his desire to have her back. He led her into his bedroom where the conversation continued. When she told him that she did not love him in the manner that he had thought and that she had to get her things from his apartment, he flew into a rage and punched her. He then picked up a hammer and struck her, causing her to fall. A New York Custody Lawyer said while in the process of striking her again, he lost his balance and fell on top of her. She managed to grab the hammer out of his hand. However, he found another hammer and continued striking her. The accused then went to the kitchen, retrieved a knife, and began stabbing her. Finally, he drove the knife into her throat and held it there until she died. The cause of death was multiple blunt and sharp force trauma injuries.

At the trial, the court found that the murder (domestic violence) was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and gave this aggravating circumstance a great weight. According to the County Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy, there were 144 wounds inflicted on the victim, fifty-seven of which were blunt force trauma injuries consistent with being struck by the flat and claw side of a hammer. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the remaining eighty-seven wounds were sharp force wounds consisting of forty-one stab wounds (i.e., the wounds were deeper than they were long) and forty-six incise wounds (i.e., the wounds were longer than they were deep). The victim had multiple defensive wounds on the palms of her hands and on her arms from blocking the blows and grabbing for a weapon. The examiner testified that she was alive for all but one of the 144 stab wounds and hammer blows. The brutality of the attack, coupled with her defensive wounds, bodily movements, and blood spatter, suggested that she knew she was fighting for her life and was aware of her impending death.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Auto Liability Policy

by Stephen Bilkis

A perusal of the facts dictates as follows:

A New York Family Lawyer said the company managed largely through its secretary-treasurer was a general lines agent in Orlando for an Accident and Indemnity Company (“Indemnity Company”), with offices just next door to defendant-owner, who by coincidence was in the life insurance business.

On 9 October 1963, defendant-owner contacted the agent, asking for a 24 hour binder liability policy until defendant-owner could come by the agent’s office the following day to get further insurance. The agent complied with the request and bound defendant-owner for 24 hours, and arranged a meeting the following day to give defendant-owner an extended coverage, as requested. The following day, 10 October 1963, the day before his son was to drive the automobile to Tampa, defendant-owner came by the agent’s office to consummate the coverage. The agent filled out defendant-owner’s application, inserted 10 October 1963 as the effective date of the policy, and accepted defendant-owner’s premium of $27.80 at that time. It was near closing time in the agent’s office when he was interrupted by a telephone call, and, being anxious to leave the office anyway, he simply indicated to one of his secretaries to take defendant-owner’s application and money and to give defendant-owner a receipt for the premium, not even bothering in his haste to get defendant-owner’s signature on the application. In the application, which the agent filled out by questions and answers from defendant-owner, all automobile accidents and traffic violations he or his family had during the previous three years were listed by defendant-owner, who also stated that one insurance company had cancelled his insurance because of a disclosed accident. On that same Thursday, 10 October 1963, the application was sent to the indemnity company office in Orlando.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Determines if Personal Jurisdiction Present in Divorce Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 18 May 1981, in the hopes of forming a family, appellant husband and his wife got married in Queens, New York. The parties then resided in West Germany until May 1983 when the wife left West Germany and moved to Montgomery, Alabama.

A New York Family Lawyer said the husband has petitioned the court for the dissolution of his marriage and filed it in Okaloosa County, Florida. He alleges that he is currently domiciled in Okaloosa County and has been a resident of Florida for at least six months before filing his petition.

In opposition, the wife moves to dismiss the petition and states that the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because the husband has not been a physical resident of the State of Florida for at least six months next prior to the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Organized Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the USA. The defendants and appellants of the case are Julio Acuna (Chino), Jose Miguel Battle, Jr. (Miguelito) a.k.a. Jose Miguel Battle Rodriguez, a.k.a. Jose R. Battle, a.k.a. Mike Battle, a.k.a. Mike Jr., a.k.a. Mike Battle, a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez Battle.

Appeal Case

The co-defendants of the case, Jose Battle, Jr. and Julio Acuna are appealing the conviction and sentences that they received, for various reasons. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendants are contending that in district court a number of errors in their case were made, which include: (a) denial of the motion for dismissal of the indictment of Battle for the because it was barred by the limitations statute; (b) response of a jury question to the defense of Battle that directed the jury to assess the instructions and reformulated the question; (c) departure before Battle’s sentence was given; (d) imposing sentences that were not reasonable on both defendants; and (e) entering a order of forfeiture to Battle that was disproportionate to the crime committed.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Decides Custody Where One Parent Lives Abroad

by Stephen Bilkis

A father moved for an order modifying the provisions of the parties’ decision of divorce to which granting him full legal and residential child custody of the child of the marriage, an order appointing a law guardian to represent the interests of their child and directing that the residence of their child remain within the state. A New York Family Lawyer said the order to show reason granted a temporary restraining order providing that the child shall remain in the state and shall not be removed from the jurisdiction during the pending proceeding.

Consequently, the mother moved for an order directing the father to immediately return the child to her, as the custodial parent.

The couple got married in Brooklyn and the mother delivered her baby in Norway. The mother had returned to Norway to avail herself of health insurance coverage and to be near to her family. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the child and mother returned to Brooklyn soon after the child’s birth and resided in New York throughout their marriage.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction Issue Regarding Divorce Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman married in New York and a daughter was born. The wife claims that they moved to Israel in 1987, with the intention of living there permanently. Although they purchased an apartment in Israel, the husband claims that he had no intention of permanently relocating there and had applied for permanent residency in that country only to obtain government benefits for his wife and daughter. It appears that the husband returned to New York in 1987 and has lived here ever since. A New York Family Lawyer said he is an Israeli citizen and their daughter who is a citizen of both the United States and Israel, have remained in Israel and continue to reside there.

In September of 1989, during religious divorce proceedings initiated by the husband, the Rabbinical Court of Israel, which has jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, awarded the child custody of the daughter to the wife and prohibited removal of the child from Israel without the permission of the Rabbinical Court. On December 12, 1989, the Rabbinical Court ordered the husband to pay his wife a guarantee for alimony and child support payments. A New York Custody Lawyer said the husband did not follow through with the religious divorce at that time.

The husband obtained a default judgment in court, awarding him a judgment of divorce upon the ground of abandonment. The divorce decree awarded joint child custody of the daughter and directed the husband to continue paying monthly child support. The parties were also ordered to sell the apartment in Israel and to split the proceeds, when either the daughter reaches emancipation or the wife remarries. It appears from the Judgment of Divorce that the court was not made aware of the prior proceedings in Israel.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Court Lacks Jurisiction to Modify Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 26 June 1983, the parties married in Rhode Island, later moved to that state, where a son was born on 13 August 1990. On 1 July 1994, the parties were divorced in Rhode Island after a contested trial in that state’s Family Court, which awarded the parties joint custody of the child with physical custody awarded to the mother, who was given responsibility for all decisions concerning the child’s education and religious upbringing. All other decisions concerning the child were to be jointly decided by the parties. The court awarded extensive visitation to the father, an attorney, who was directed to pay child support of $1,500 per month. In pertinent part, the judgment of divorce states: “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decisions concerning custody and visitation in accordance with the provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.”

From his birth until the fall of 1994, the child resided in Providence, Rhode Island. After the parties’ separation in 1992, the child had frequent and extensive contact with his father during the week and on alternate weekends. On 10 November 1994, after a hearing, the Rhode Island Family Court entered an order permitting the mother to relocate to New York on condition that the father have extensive visitation in Rhode Island, including, inter alia, three weekends every month. The order required the mother to deliver the child and pick him up from Providence on two weekends and New Haven, Connecticut on the other weekend and to bear the cost thereof. A New York Family Lawyer said the order further provided, “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decision concerning custody, visitation and child support, and shall be in accordance with provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended 15-14-1 through 26.” The parties substantially adhered to these provisions from November 1994 to the present.

On 12 September 2003, the mother commenced the instant proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County for an order “a) modifying the extraordinary visitation schedule entered almost nine years ago; and b) modifying and enforcing the child support provisions established pursuant to the parties’ divorce over nine years ago.”